Furthermore, your choice of graphing methods leaves a lot to be desired. Or do you just find it challenging to put together a graph that is more usable?

As for correlation in the direction you obviously desire, only the green stands out. That stands for gun crime. Obviously, when the rules are more strict, gun crime will rise simply because stricter rules mean something is a crime when otherwise it would not be in a less strict environment. So the green data is sketchy as well.

One thing I don't understand is the idea many Americans have that having guns would protect them from the government. The government has more weapons, more powerful weapons (atomic bombs for that matter), more people, more skilled people, and just more access to resources. Just having a rifle would not do much good in vs. government scenarios.

+1

Only a modern day idiot would think they can stop the government with just a few thousand people (yeah that's how many would be fighting when it came down to it)..

The government has NUKES stupid. Even if they were getting over-run do you not think they would use them?

In this new nuclear era, governments are to be changed with voices & ideas.. NOT with brute force.

Using any violence to attain ones goals should not even be a reasonable option.

1 tweet message in today's era can have more effect than 1,000,000 bullets.

Furthermore, your choice of graphing methods leaves a lot to be desired. Or do you just find it challenging to put together a graph that is more usable?

As for correlation in the direction you obviously desire, only the green stands out. That stands for gun crime. Obviously, when the rules are more strict, gun crime will rise simply because stricter rules mean something is a crime when otherwise it would not be in a less strict environment. So the green data is sketchy as well.

Accidents and suicides are excluded because they are not what the laws are enacted to prevent.

But tell you what, you find me some data that gives just firearm accidents, by state, per 100k population, I'll run up a graph on it. While you're at it, look up lawnmower or chainsaw accidents by state per 100k population, so we have a control.

Also, numbnuts, the green line is the total of the other three. Nothing more, nothing less. And don't blame me if you can't read data. You want to make your own charts, go ahead. The raw data is a few pages back in the first post with this graph on it.

Also, numbnuts, the green line is the total of the other three. Nothing more, nothing less. And don't blame me if you can't read data. You want to make your own charts, go ahead. The raw data is a few pages back in the first post with this graph on it.

What is the basis for summing them together? Did you do that? A robbery and murder might be the same event and same perpetrator. Looks like you might be guilty of doubling up where you shouldn't be.

But tell you what, you find me some data that gives just firearm accidents, by state, per 100k population, I'll run up a graph on it. While you're at it, look up lawnmower or chainsaw accidents by state per 100k population, so we have a control.

Guns are designed to kill. Lawnmowers are designed to cut grass. If you want to use an analogy that works (I know you do want an analogy that works, but aren't quite unbiased enough in your thinking to discover it), I'll suggest one for you. Instead of lawnmowers, use any type of weapon that is not a gun.

Why can't you reply to one post with one post? You wouldn't... No, you couldn't be trying to get that graph off the screen, could you? You wouldn't do something so blatantly dishonest, as that, would you?

But tell you what, you find me some data that gives just firearm accidents, by state, per 100k population, I'll run up a graph on it. While you're at it, look up lawnmower or chainsaw accidents by state per 100k population, so we have a control.

Guns are designed to kill. Lawnmowers are designed to cut grass. If you want to use an analogy that works (I know you do want an analogy that works, but aren't quite unbiased enough in your thinking to discover it), I'll suggest one for you. Instead of lawnmowers, use any type of weapon that is not a gun.

A chainsaw is most definitely designed to kill. Trees, yes, but wood is much tougher than flesh. So if you want to compare a weapon other than a gun, I suggest a chainsaw. So, go, get me that data. I'll do a side-by side comparison.

Also, numbnuts, the green line is the total of the other three. Nothing more, nothing less. And don't blame me if you can't read data. You want to make your own charts, go ahead. The raw data is a few pages back in the first post with this graph on it.

What is the basis for summing them together? Did you do that? A robbery and murder might be the same event and same perpetrator. Looks like you might be guilty of doubling up where you shouldn't be.

I did sum that up myself. Still, nothing stopping you from making your own charts. Go right ahead.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I find it interesting that some people think the situation in Colorado would have ended better if a dark theatre full of smoke and screaming people was also full of cross-fire.

The situation would probably not have happened if something like 20% of the crowd was armed.

I don't think Americans will ever change. The statistics are clear, just look at the graph posted early on in the thread. Countries which have strong gun control laws have way, way lower homicide rates and a notable lack of random massacres.

Comparing countries like this is dumb. Why don't you compare with Brazil, then? Stricter gun laws than most European countries. I've already met French legal gun owners after a couple years living here, whose guns were not part of their jobs. The only Brazilian legal gun owner I've ever met after more than 20 years living there was a professional body-guard. Having a legal gun in Brazil is extremely difficult. Now go take a look in the crime rates there.

If you want statistical data - what's never a good start point when studying societal behavior, as Mises already explained - at least make some attempt of isolating other variables. Thousands of variables influence criminality. The research done by the author of More guns, less crimes at least tries to do such, by comparing each USA county against itself, after and before legal changes concerning gun permits. The name of the book already states the conclusion. I'm sure it's not the perfect, but at least is less lame than comparing different countries/regions.

I used to believe gun control is important to reduce violence, as that's taught in Brazil repeatedly. But then I've decided to check what I've been told.

And plus, there's always the ethical argument you people just ignore. If some dude is carrying a gun, but not hurting everyone, who the hell you think you are to point your gun to him and order him to give away his weapon, and eventually even throwing the guy in a cage? Seriously? That's your idea of "civic behavior"?

Comparing countries like this is dumb. Why don't you compare with Brazil, then? Stricter gun laws than most European countries. I've already met French legal gun owners after a couple years living here, whose guns were not part of their jobs. The only Brazilian legal gun owner I've ever met after more than 20 years living there was a professional body-guard. Having a legal gun in Brazil is extremely difficult. Now go take a look in the crime rates there.

What's your point, Mr Smart ?Once you take into account social problems like staggering inequalities there is absolutely zero evidence that the crime rate would be any lower with more permissive gun laws.

Comparing countries like this is dumb. Why don't you compare with Brazil, then? Stricter gun laws than most European countries. I've already met French legal gun owners after a couple years living here, whose guns were not part of their jobs. The only Brazilian legal gun owner I've ever met after more than 20 years living there was a professional body-guard. Having a legal gun in Brazil is extremely difficult. Now go take a look in the crime rates there.

What's your point, Mr Smart ?Once you take into account social problems like staggering inequalities there is absolutely zero evidence that the crime rate would be any lower with more permissive gun laws.

Or higher...

Here's a theory: People is people. If they want to kill someone, or rob someone, or whatever, they're going to do it. If they don't have a gun available to use to do so, they're just going to use a different weapon, whether a baseball bat, or a steak knife, or whatever piece of sharp-ish or heavy junk is laying around.

"Statistics" cannot invalidate inherent human rights in the U.S. federal court system, especially the right to self-defense.

/end thread

Err... we can make amendments to the Constitution. Due Process is already gone, and nobody even bothered to make an amendment about it.

The due process clause is what was used to incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the states in McDonald v Chicago, rather than the privileges/immunities clause. Constitutional scholars and lawyers would probably disagree it's gone. P&orI, on the other hand, is on life support with Justice Thomas as its nurse. Fortunately, the 2A merely codifies the right that preexisted Man, it doesn't create the right or grant it, so even if the 2A was repealed and the steps of gun control that lead to genocide were taken, we'd still have the right to defend ourselves at natural law. As does anyone living under a government that labels self-defense a crime and then starts exterminating its own people, usually those who can defend themselves first.

Comparing countries like this is dumb. Why don't you compare with Brazil, then? Stricter gun laws than most European countries. I've already met French legal gun owners after a couple years living here, whose guns were not part of their jobs. The only Brazilian legal gun owner I've ever met after more than 20 years living there was a professional body-guard. Having a legal gun in Brazil is extremely difficult. Now go take a look in the crime rates there.

What's your point, Mr Smart ?

My point is clear in the same paragraph you quote, Mr Attentive Reader : comparing different countries violence rates is dumb, as there are too many variables.

Once you take into account social problems like staggering inequalities there is absolutely zero evidence that the crime rate would be any lower with more permissive gun laws.

Did you even read the paragraph that follows the one you quoted above? A guy did try to isolate other variables (by comparing the same place after/before legal changes concerning guns) and he did conclude that More Guns, Less Crimes (name of the book). I realize his comparison is probably not perfect, but it's certainly better than comparing different countries/regions.

It's too late now for any restriction to have any effect on the crime statistics. At least in the USA and neighboring countries. There are simply too many guns floating around.

Laws prohibiting guns do not affect crime. Rulers, knowing they are tyranical and willing to impose any law that suits their need, need to ban weapons to prevent rebellion.

Quote from: Schleicher

You can only reduce the number of accidents, for example with a mandantory gun safety training.

This is provided for in the constitution, A well regulated state malitia, if used as was meant, would provide a large training caricculum that would instill safety.

Quote from: grntbdev

One thing I don't understand is the idea many Americans have that having guns would protect them from the government. The government has more weapons, more powerful weapons (atomic bombs for that matter), more people, more skilled people, and just more access to resources. Just having a rifle would not do much good in vs. government scenarios.

It's the law of large numbers. 400,000 military soldiers patroling the USA v. 200 million constitutionally angry citizens, organized and carrying muzzle loaders, who wins. The constitutionally angry citizens.Your nuclear comment is just retarded.

Quote from: grntbdev

Weren't tanks sent in at Waco?

Yes. But the tanks were being operated by Delta Force Commandos sent in by the Clinton White House.Not one surviving member was charged for the deaths of the raiding officers. Even though the Dividians did nothing wrong, they couldn't beat the best of the best militry unit in existence. Why? They didn't think their government would reach to that level to eliminate them. Several unarmed women and 24 children hiding in a 1 foot thick concrete reinforced bunker were killed by a Delta Force demolition charge designed to breach and kill. They legally purchased their weapons and were selling them legally, it wasn't guns that were the target, it was their religion.

The Gun Control Act was the first successful attack on the Constitution to limit guns in America. Criminals are already in the government, they are the ones trying to take our guns, a mob rule.The Constitution doesn't discriminate on free men,Who can own guns? AllBut evil men will discriminate for control,Then what happens to America? FallAn armed populace will make it very difficult for there to be any group to gain an unfair advantage.

It's the law of large numbers. 400,000 military soldiers patroling the USA v. 200 million constitutionally angry citizens, organized and carrying muzzle loaders, who wins. The constitutionally angry citizens.Your nuclear comment is just retarded.

LOL.

NATO in Iraq - who won? Iraqi losses in hundreds of thousands.Soviets/NATO in Afghanistan - millions of afgani dead.